How Democratic Was Andrew Jacksona Based on His Treatment of Slaves

What I have learned about antebellum American slavery is first of all, about how the slaves were treated and how different the slaveowners view of how they treated the slaves was compared to other people’s views, especially the slaves. Some slaveowners saw themselves as kind to the slaves and that they had good treatment while the slaves and other evidence shows that this was not the case, this is also the aspect that I will be talking about later in this essay. Slave trade is another thing that I have learned about, something I thought was important about this is how families get split up when they are being sold, the reason being that the slaveowners will be much more likely to sell the slaves for more money if they are sold separate and not together.

Something else that I have learned from our classes is to understand more about runaway slaves and why not everyone would try to escape. The consequences if a runaway slave didn’t succeed were many and could be quite harmful as well. In the class we discussed this and it turned out that the majority would not try to escape or was unsure. It was very hard to escape, for example, there were dogs tracking runaway slaves and it was hard to have enough resources to reach one of the free states. Despite this some slaves succeeded and came to a free state where they could start a new life as a free person, other slaves found Maroon communities that they joined and managed to stay free with that community.

The Slaveowners Treatment During Antebellum Slavery

The majority of slaveowners during antebellum slavery did not treat the slaves good even though some might think they did. There are several documents and other type of evidence that shows this. Many slaves had to suffer even if they were following the rules but worst was for the slaves breaking the rules of the slave-owners trying to seek a new opportunity in life. The treatment was not the same between all the slaveowners and it could be different forms of it. Some slaves have stories that are truly horrible and emotional about their days in slavery. Although they were not always treated great they could sometimes take part in both non combative and combative activities that slaves would find enjoyment in . In this essay I will go through different type of evidence variating between primary and secondary sources.

Examples show how the slaveowners saw themselves as treating the slaves good but in reality, their treatment was quite harsh. For example, when Andrew Jackson was a slave master of almost 100 slaves, he visioned himself as a “kind slave master”, He also said that his negroes/slaves “shall be treated humanely” (Hollitz, 216). Despite of what he said some of his slaves got whipped to possibly as many as fifty lashes, some were even chained up. Worst was for the runaway slaves trying to escape in order to start a better life, some captured runaways had been put in “shackles” and they would stay in them until they were either sold or exchanged. One time, Jackson offered someone that would catch a runaway a reward of 50 dollars and even more if the capturer exceeded the amount of 100 lashes. (Hollitz, 216). In Drew Gilpin Faust’s essay he wrote about a slave owner called James Henry Hammond in South Carolina, Hammond did not only treat his slaves with punishments, he offered rewards for slaves in different contests but also in “Occasional rituals, for all” (Hollitz 221). This evidence shows that a system of rewards existed and it was not always work for nothing to gain.

They way that Andrew Jackson treated his slaves was not the only way. Sergio Lussana writes about enslaved fighting contests in the Antebellum south. At a cotton plantation in Alabama, a former slave by the name of John Finnely, talked about the fighting contests that was happening at his plantation. Finelly says that the fights were mainly “fo’ de w’ite fo’k’s” joyment, but even Finnely and other slaves enjoyed watching it. It is even said that Finnely’s love for the contests made him rethink about plans that he had about running away to freedom. (Lussana, 901). Lussana points out that other scholars have been wrong that argued against the possibility that slaves could engage in activities like this, because there is evidence that slaves have participated in activities where they can show their physical strength, not just showing it in the field working. (Lussana, 902). As young boys Lussana writes that slaves were engaged in different noncombative games and not too rarely they would be joined by one of the master’s children. In combative games they would also interact, for example, G. W. Offley talked about one of his interactions with his masters son, he said “'I learned him the art of wrestling, boxing and fighting, and he learned me to read.''(Lussana, 905).

In a typescript narrative from 1937, William Colbert recalls whippings and other harsh treatment as a slave in Georgia. In this Narrative he writes about when another slave by the name of January was being whipped, January did not open his mouth and the master was beating until streams of blood started flowing down his chest. During the whipping Colbert writes that “January, he neber said nothin’, and de massa keep a beatin' till little streams of blood started flowin1 down Januaryfs chest, but he neber holler.” (Colbert, 82). The other slaves couldn’t stand what they were seeing and went back in their cabins. January couldn’t stand it himself either and in a large whisper he said, “Massa, have mercy on dis poor nigger” (Colbert, 82). I think this narrative shows an example of how harsh some slave masters could be and what some slaves had to go through. In the narrative it is not being written why the slave was being whipped though, I think this makes the source a little less credible, because if we knew the reason behind the whipping, the story could be somewhat more understandable.

In slavery trails of tears Delores McQuinn was told a quite interesting story from her father. He told her that his father had found out where the people that had owned his family back in the days were located. When her grandfather had come to the door and asked for documentation about their history in the slave days in a polite way, the man that was by the door had went back into the house and grabbed some form of papers. When he came back to the door, he lit up a match and burned the papers right in front of the grandfather. The man said while the papers were burning “you want your history, here it is, take the ashes and get off my land” (Ball, 80). This disrespectful act symbolizes the respect that some slave masters had for slaves and their relatives, it might also be related to the reason of how they treated their slaves. Thomson that comes from a family that used to own slaves shows another side of slavery. He said that “In my family, people looked after their slaves, they bought shoes for them, blankets for them, brought in doctors to treat them. I never heard of any mistreatment.” (Ball, 71). From this quote and from the page where Thompson is talking, it sounds like the slaves his family owned were treated good and didn’t have to suffer from harsh treatment, but on the other hand this is from the experience of people owning slaves and not the slaves themselves. The case might be that Thompsons family thought this way but the reality was not the same, just like Andrew Jackson and his treatment of his slaves.

Learning about antebellum American slavery and the treatment of the slaves, I think that there is not one simple answer to how everyone was treated, because it varied from plantation to plantation. In some plantations the slaves were treated okay, with different type of rewards. In some cases, there were activities that both slave masters could enjoy and slaves together. The example of Finnely shows that such activities could even make them want to stay at the plantation. However, at other plantations treatment was more harsh, and even though slaveowners thought that they were kind to the slaves the evidence of dozen of whippings shows it was not the case. A reason why some slaveowners saw themselves as kind could be that slavery was a part of the culture during that time, and at first not many people were questioning what was happening, this made the owners think that, because, it was seen as their property whatever they wanted to do with it was acceptable. We can see that slaves were not treated with complete segregation from whites, since they would occasionally take part in different activities together with them. I think that slaveowners generally lacked respect for their slaves but again I think it has to do with how the owner’s culture had shaped them. Overall, I think that the treatment of slaves is an important aspect of slavery and it is useful to learn about. Even in todays society this plays a part and is often talked about.

Bibliography:

1. Lussana, Sergio. To See Who Was Best on the Plantation: Enslaved Fighting Contests and Masculinity in the Antebellum Plantation South. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uis.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=812f6682-18dc-4752-9587-3f43076746dd%40sdc-v-sessmgr02
2. “Image 91 of Federal Writers' Project: Slave Narrative Project, Vol. 1, Alabama, Aarons-Young.” The Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.010/?sp=88&st=text
3. Hollitz, John. Thinking through the Past: a Critical Thinking Approach to Us History.